Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 558 Pa. 334 - Commonwealth v. Koehler

Commonwealth v. Koehler’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
1
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 71 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Commonwealth v. Mouzon (2002), Commonwealth v. Delbridge (2003)

2 federal appellate · 71 state decisions

6501999200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Great State Beverages, Inc. v. Wenners · Anschuetz & Co. v. Mississippi River Bridge Authority · Attwood v. Singletary

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he decision on whether to disqualify is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed in the absence of a palpable abuse of discretion.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, an appellate court must view all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner in order to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to enable the fact finder to find that all of the elements of the offenses were established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The number of overt acts in common; the overlap of personnel; the time period during which the alleged acts took place; the similarity in methods of operation; the location in which the alleged acts took place; the extent to which the purported conspiracies share a common objective; and the degree to which interdependence is needed for the overall operation to succeed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.